•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In 1986, Robert Condlin published an article, now somewhat notorious in clinical circles, entitled "Tastes Great, Less Filling": The Law School Clinic and Political Critique. There he attacked in-house clinical programs for failing to provide a political critique of lawyering. Political critique, he suggested, requires a critical theory, defined as "views on the nature of a fair and just legal system and the role of lawyer practices in operating and improving it." The paramount goal of clinical instruction is such critique, and without it, clinics "will remain relegated to training tasks not considered important enough over the long run by a university law school." Condlin argued that the typical clinic cannot appropriately engage in this critical endeavor because of design and resource limitations. He suggested that externship programs supervised by full time faculty provide a better vehicle for students to learn how to think critically about lawyering. "Tastes Great" was viewed as heresy by many clinical educators. Unfortunately, Condlin's legitimate concerns about the relegation of clinical teaching to trade school-like "skills instruction" were overshadowed by his condemnation of in-house clinics- still a sensitive issue in law school politics. This article both follows from and challenges Condlin's critique. I argue that the lawyering methodology taught in most clinical programs is premised upon a critical theory. The problem is that we have not developed a methodology for systematically articulating and teaching the theory. In what I hope is a constructive manner, this article addresses how we can put theory into our teaching and our vision of practice. Part II considers why legal theory makes a difference in clinical teaching, and distinguishes micro theory from macro theory in the teaching of lawyering methodology. In Parts III and IV, I explore the parallel histories of critical legal theory and clinical education, and summarize those components of critical theory that most aptly find their way into our lawyering paradigms. In Part V, using examples of several skill components that cut across most clinical programs- interviewing, counseling, development of case theory, and negotiation- I analyze the underlying micro and macro theories, and make suggestions for how these skills can be taught from a more theoretical foundation. In Part VI, I offer some thoughts for the skeptical reader. I conclude by suggesting that we embrace the idea of "critical lawyering" as an overarching paradigm for our teaching that will serve the purpose of imbuing skills instruction with a solid theoretical foundation.

Publication Title

Clinical Law Review

Volume

5

Issue

1

First Page

95

Download

Share

COinS